Commonwealth v. Teada’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently December 2007 · most notably 152 Ohio App. 3d 311 - State v. Samatar (2003), Commonwealth v. Allsup (1978)
5 federal appellate · 41 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(4) Schedule IV—In determining that a substance comes within this schedule, the secretary shall find: a low potential for abuse relative to substances in Schedule III; currently accepted medical use in the United States; and limited physical and/or psychological dependence liability relative to the substances listed in Schedule III. The following controlled substances are included in this schedule: (i) Any material, compound, mixture, or preparation, unless specifically excepted or unless listed in another schedule, which contains any quantity of the following substances having a potential for abuse associated with a depressant effect on the central nervous system---(Emphasis added)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Schedule I of the Act, supra, lists those substances which have a high abuse potential and no accepted medical use such as heroin and marijuana. The sale or possession of these substances is illegal without regard to quantity. Since these substances have no legitimate use no inquiry into the quantity delivered or possessed is necessary in order to establish its illegality. Schedule II of the Act involves those substances which have a high abuse potential, but for which there is an accepted medical use. Subsection (i) and (ii) of Schedule II list various substances without regard to quantity. However, subsection (iii) lists four substances stating that the quantity of these substances must have a ‘potential for abuse associated with a stimulant effect on the central nervous system.’ Furthermore that subsection goes on to proscribe the possession or delivery of one particular substance, methamphetamine, without regard to quantity. See, 35 P.S. 780- 104(2)(iii). Obviously the legislature enacted this subsection because it considered methamphetamine in any quantity to be more dangerous than the other substances enumerated in Schedule II. The statutory scheme is one of imposing greater restrictions on the more dangerous substances and of imposing greater proof requirements on the prosecution as the criminal inquiry moves from the most dangerous substances to the least dangerous ones.” (Emphasis added) Id., 235 Pa.Super. at 440 , 344 A.2d at 683-84 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.